Wednesday, October 25, 2017

Some power plant opponents have put their bodies on the line. Actually,"jumping up and down and getting mad" has held the line for almosttwo years (RI Future photo)

Since the Clear River Energy
Center was proposed two years ago, the state’s environmental Big Three have
been criticized by some power-plant opponents for not being more aggressive in
their denunciation of the controversial fossil-fuel project.

The Rhode Island chapter of
The Nature Conservancy, the Audubon Society of Rhode Island, and Save The Bay
could be accused of entering the fray a little late, some would argue by about
six months, but all three organizations, along with the Conservation Law
Foundation, have been vocal opponents of the natural-gas/diesel facility.

“There are arguments that
could stop it,” said Larry Taft, executive director of the Audubon Society of
Rhode Island. “But jumping up and down and getting mad won’t make a difference.
We’ve been remarkably consistent in our opposition, but perhaps more restrained
than some might like.”

Taft recently spoke with
ecoRI News about the perception that
his organization and other Rhode Island conservation agencies haven’t done
enough to derail the project. He politely said that isn’t the case, and handed
ecoRI News a letter his organization issued in July in opposition to the
proposed power plant.

“Audubon opposes the
proposed 900MW power plant in Burrillville, Rhode Island because it will
disturb the integrity of western Rhode Island’s forested habitats and wildlife
corridors and because the plant undermines Rhode Island’s ability to achieve
greenhouse gas reduction goals set in the 2014 Resilient Rhode Island Act.

“The proposed Invenergy
power plant would undermine the integrity of one of the most intact, forested
areas in not only in Rhode Island, but also in Southern New England. Large
tracts of forest are critical to the region’s biodiversity as well as our
ability to adapt to and mitigate against the threats of climate change.”

Taft noted that the
organization’s stance remains the same.

“Audubon is opposed to a new
power plant anywhere in Rhode Island,” he said. “We don’t even want one in
Connecticut. That continues to be our singular message.”

Taft said the chosen
location for the Clear River Energy Center — the forest of northwest Rhode
Island — and the proposed construction of a fossil-fuel power plant provide a
double whammy: “a really nice spot in the middle of a natural wildlife
corridor” that “is counter to state policy.”

It’s the latter point that
the Audubon Society is most concerned about. The organization, like other
environmental agencies, believes adding a fossil-fuel facility would weaken
Rhode Island’s ability to lower its greenhouse-gas emissions and would
exacerbate climate-change impacts. That’s the legal argument Taft said that
could derail the project.

“Climate change is a reality,”
Taft said. “Why are we building another fossil-fuel power plant? We should be
focused on using solar and wind to generate electricity, not converting natural
gas to make electricity.”

He said the Conservation Law
Foundation (CLF) “is making a great case that the power plant isn’t necessary.”
Taft said that issue and where the Chicago-based developer will get water,
primary and backup sources, to cool the facility are the key arguments against
the project. He noted that the Biological
Inventory Report “isn’t a game changer.”

“There’s nothing in that
report that would bring a power company to their knees,” Taft said. “The siting
of these type of facilities allows for the taking of some wildlife habitat.
Climate change and sea-level rise, though, are having a huge impact.”

The Nature Conservancy (TNC)
has done an excellent job showing how the proposed power plant would undermine
the integrity of one of the most intact forested areas in southern New England,
according to Taft.

In its July
21 letter to Gov. Gina Raimondo, TNC said building a power plant
in the proposed location would threaten the ecosystem and biodiversity.

“The Invenergy power plant
would threaten the integrity of a 12,000-acre forest area, one of the largest
intact natural areas in Rhode Island,” according to TNC’s July
letter. “Moreover, the power plant’s proposed location is within a
critical corridor for wildlife movement to other healthy forest areas from the
Quabbin Reservoir to the north and to the southern coast of Rhode Island.”

Save The Bay recently urged
the rejection of the Clear River Energy Center, saying that it would cause
unacceptable harm to the environment. The Providence-based organization cited a
recent Rhode Island Department of Environmental Management advisory
opinion that raised concerns about the amount of forestland
that would need to be clear-cut to make room for the proposed facility.

“Can’t Rhode Island meet its
energy needs without taking out one of its most valuable ecological areas?”
Topher Hamblett, Save The Bay’s director of advocacy and policy, asked the
state Energy Facility Siting Board at an Oct.
10 public hearing at Burrillville High School.

There are at least 75
organizations, municipalities and lawmakers that have publicly come out in
opposition to the Clear River Energy Center, according to Keep
Rhode Island Beautiful.

The proposed site for
fossil-fuel power plant is owned by an out-of-state energy conglomerate.